The CHAIRMAN. Were most of these strikes in industries where company unions prevailed?

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. The Budd Strike. I think I shall enumerate a large number of them as I go along.

The CHAIRMAN. The record shows that since the adoption of the N.R.A., whatever strikes have occurred have been more feequent in the establishments and industries where company unions exist rather than in the industries where organization labor unions, so-called exist?

Mr. GREEN. Where heretofore no contract existed between employer and employee.

Senator WALCOTT. Can we have a list of those companies where the strikes occurred?

Mr. GREEN. Yes, I have them here.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Walcott.

Mr. GREEN. Pardon me. If you were at the hearing yesterday conducted by the National Labor Board upon the complaint of those employed in the automobile industry, representing thousands, you would have soon discovered that the threatened strike, with all its serious potentialities and consequences, in the automobile industry is directly traceable not only to the determination but the actual imposition of company unions by automobile manufacturers upon their employees. They prepared them; they presented them. I say truthfully they forced them to accept them, during the period between last June and the first of December.

Senator BORAH. Are there any company unions which you concede to be voluntary unions upon the part of the employees?

Mr. GREEN. Well, Senator, I know of none. There may be some independent unions that have been formed outside of the American Federation of Labor; the Railroad Brotherhoods are bona fide unions, and there are others. We do not classify them as company unions; we classify the company unions as a union fostered by the company, organized by the company, promoted by the company, and imposed upon the workers by the company.

Senator BORAH. You would not deny to the employees of the company, should they desire to do so, the right to voluntarily organize in that company?

Mr. GREEN. Positively not. And we would not deny to a worker the right to say whether he wanted to belong to a union or stay out. We want him to have his free choice.

Senator BORAH. I understand that. But the idea has gotten abroad that you desire to deny the right to the employees to organize if they wish to organize.

Mr. GREEN. I want to issue my denial of that in the record. We want them to be free to say whether they want to be with us, or whether they want to be with another bona fide union, but let it be a union that is not supported and fostered and financed by a corporation.

Senator BORAH. You want to take away the domination of the employers.

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir; we want to take away the domination of the employer.

Senator BORAH. That is the limit of your desire in this matter?

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir.

Senator WALCOTT. And you want to also, do you, leave him entirely free to his individual choice, whether he should belong to any union

or not?

Mr. GREEN. Absolutely.

Senator WALCOTT. With no pressure whatsoever from the employer?

Mr. GREEN. Let him decide it for himself.

Senator WAGNER. That is all this legislation is intended to do. Mr. GREEN. That is what this legislation is intended to do. Senator BORAH. Are we narrowing it down to the proposition of whether a man shall have the right to be free from the domination of his employer? Is that all there is in it?

Mr. GREEN. Well, Senator, we found that section 7 (a) did not work.

Senator BORAH. I know you did.

Mr. GREEN. Now we want to make it workable and vital and that is the purpose of this legislation.

Senator BORAH. Well, the purpose of it is to remove the controlling, the dominating power of the employer of forcing these employees into a company union.

Mr. GREEN. Absolutely.

Senator WAGNER. That is all it is.

The CHAIRMAN. When it comes to collective bargaining while nominally they are representatives of the employees of the railroad, they are, in fact, representatives of the employers?

Mr. GREEN. Really they are representatives of the company. will repeat again, Senator, what I stated before you came in, that there isn't a single agreement providing for wages, hours, and conditions of employment that has been negotiated and signed by the representatives of corporations and company unions.

Senator WAGNER. That came out in the case we had yesterday. Mr. GREEN. It came out very clearly yesterday. Senator WAGNER. No effort ever has been made? Mr. GREEN. No effort has ever been made at all. Senator BORAH. Let me understand that again. statement?

What was your

Senator WAGNER. Yesterday we had a hearing in the automobile industry and it came out very clearly that the company union was formed by sending to each worker a constitution and bylaws and telling him, "This is now your organization." As the result of that an election was held, and the workers testified that they voted because they knew very well if they did not vote their jobs were gone. Then they elected these representatives. We asked the representatives whether they had ever negotiated or attempted to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement as to wages and hours on behalf of the workers with the company, and they said, no; they never did, never made any such effort. The sole purpose seems to be to listen to the complaints of the workers as to some complaint around the shop, something of that kind. We tried our best to find out what else was done.

Senator BORAH. Do you think that is characteristic of company unions generally, that there is no agreement made?

Senator WAGNER. I can only speak for those that actually came before us, and it was characteristic of every case of a companydominated union. I think there are company unions that are not dominated by the employers, independent unions that may not be affiliated at all with the national organization here.

Senator WALCOTT. While we are on that subject, why cannot we get a list here, either as part of the record, or if it is too confidential, Mr. Green, submit it to this committee for executive session. That will show all those companies that have, by force or intimidation, as you charge, compelled a company union to be organized within its own branch, and those that have unions that are independent from employer control. Why can't we get such a list as that?

Mr. GREEN. I have a list.

Senator WALCOTT. You make a very serious charge here. Now it seems to me we ought to know the exact facts about that, and the names of the people that are guilty of intimidation.

Mr. GREEN. It will be very difficult, I presume, to assemble that data, but I will endeavor to do it, Senator, and submit it to you.

Senator WAGNER. Mr. Green, may I just emphasize this point, that if a union is not dominated by the employer this legislation cannot affect it.

Mr. GREEN. Then this law does not affect it.

Mr. WALCOTT. I understand.

Senator WAGNER. This legislation only affects the cases and all we do is to restrain some practices through which an employer's dominated union operates, this affects cases where the employers dominate the unions. That is all this legislation does.

Senator WALCOTT. I understand.

Senator WAGNER. If they do not dominate the union there is no interverence of any kind or character.

Senator WALCOTT. I understand.

Senator BORAH. What is your test of domination?

Senator WAGNER. For instance, financing the union, completely dominating the union through financing it, initiating the union.

The CHAIRMAN. Yesterday, Senator, in your temporary absence, Dr. S. H. Slichter, a professor from Harvard made an able presentation injecting that thought into this bill. He thought it was conceivable that a right-minded employer could initiate a company union and not dominate it, and he rather objected to the word "initiate." Senator WAGNER. He objected to the word "initiate."

The CHAIRMAN. He agreed with you and Mr. Green in the necessity of preventing coercion or domination by employers, but he thought an employer ought to have the right to say to his men, "you are not organized. I think you ought to get together and from an employees organization", and then leave them free to do so.

Senator WAGNER. I have no pride of words at all. It is the substance I am after.

The CHAIRMAN. It is along the line of the question of Senator Borah as to the test of domination, as to what the definition of "dominating a union" is.

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

Senator WAGNER. I think Senator Borah put it all in one sentence when he said the only effort here is to make free men out of workmen. Mr. GREEN. That is all there is to it.

Senator WAGNER. That is all there is to it.

Mr. GREEN. Let the workers decide for themselves if they want to belong to a union, or if they do not.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it difficult for anyone to get direct evidence of domination by employers of a company union?

Mr. GREEN. It isn't difficult to secure evidence that would convince the ordinary person, Senator, because it goes back to this, that if there is no union in the plant, the corporation sets up a union for them, it drafts the bylaws of the union, and says, "Here us your union, here are your bylaws." That is what happens. The employer goes on, then, and says, "Now we want you to call an election and select your representatives." They usually participate in the selection of the representatives. The balloting is held in the factory in an atmosphere of coercion, where the subbosses and the foremen and superintendents are watching and observing and directing the whole election machinery. There is not a fair-minded man that would not say that that is a company-dominated union.

Senator WAGNER. And the workers are directed to go up and vote. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Walcott, you could ask the Department of Labor to procure the statistics.

Senator WALCOTT. I think it is very important, if that is an extensive thing, that we know it, because it has a distinct bearing on this bill. That is the purpose of this bill.

Senator WAGNER. I do not think it has the slightest bearing on this bill, because if the company is not dominating the union, the bill will not affect it.

Senator WALCOTT. We do not need the bill if that is the case.

Senator WAGNER. Exactly. It is only a certain type of companies that we are after.

Senator WALCOTT. Let us find out how extensive this practice is, because we don't know.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wagner yesterday in his testimony. in your absence, Senator Walcott, stated that 75 percent of the strikes since the inauguration of the N.R.A. came out of or related to the creation of company unions in industries.

Senator WAGNER. It came out of the refusal of employers to recognize those who had been selected by the workers to represent them.

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

Senator WAGNER. The dispute was on the question of recognition, recognizing the employees' representatives.

Senator WALCOTT. And in most cases the representatives were chosen out of the union?

Senator WAGNER. No; as the result of an election by the workers, but the employees in those cases felt that they had a right to decide with whom they should deal on behalf of the workers.

Mr. GREEN. I think I can bring some of these facts out and some of the information you are referring to, in the statement I have. The CHAIRMAN. With the permission of the committee, we will proceed, Mr. Green.

Mr. GREEN. All right. Now, how company unions are formed. No one needs to stand here and cite evidence that company unions have been formed by companies and not by employees. That is an open secret. As General Johnson told the code authorities last week:

There is no law prohibiting a company union as such if there is no interposition whatever by employers, and if the men freely choose it.

But 99 times out of 100, you and I know that this is not the case. Let's not kid ourselves.

The printed constitutions which have been sent us by union members all over the country-some of them identical even in format, others identical only in wording would dispel any doubt concerning the spontaneous nature of these organizations. It is interesting, however, to see how these plans have been publicized. For years, the publications of the National Industrial Conference Board and of the American Management Association have been telling employers how to start company unions.

In 1932, the Policy Holders' Bureau of the Metropolitan Life entered the field with a pamphlet called "Employee Representation", in the foreword of which was the statement, "The bureau expresses no opinion either pro or con on the subject of the report. The aim has been to present a picture of actual practices in the organization and operation of employee representation plans from a purely factfinding point of view." In 1933, the Policy Holders' Service Bureau issued a pamphlet with the new style terminology, "Collective Bargaining Through Employee Representation." This contained no such foreword and presented two plans for employee representation: (1) for a company having widely separated units, or employees at different working locations. These plans are complete, with a suggested letter to be signed by the president of the company or the joint committee "drafting the plan" as a means of introducing the employee representation plan to those affected.

Even official governmental sanction has been given in a report by Walter C. Teagle, chairman of the industrial relations committee of the business advisory and planning council for the Department of Commerce. In his introduction, Mr. Teagle states that his report 'champions the advantages of employee representation for the purposes of collective bargaining."

Since the National Industrial Recovery Administration trade papers have told their readers how, either by printing the constitution of the Carnegie Steel plan or the Chrysler Motor Co. plan, or by news notes that the Republic Steel & Iron Co., which had operated a successful plan for 15 years, would send a copy of its constitution on request, or that the industrial relations section of Princeton University would send a bibliography of reference.

Mr. T. H. A. Tiedeman, of the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, is quoted in Personnel, the magazine of the American Management Association, for November 1933, as saying that one company, presumably his own company, had sent out almost 2,000 copies of an outline of preparation and installation of an employee representation plan

For the confidential use of many executives, who because of the Industrial Recovery Act, are making inquiry as to the best method of inaugurating a plan of collective bargaining between elected representatives of employees and management.

Mr. Tiedeman states that inquiries were carefully scrutinized so that answers were sent only to the 2,000 worthwhile inquiries.

Mr. GREEN. Here I have a number of plans prepared by these service organizations, as I am informed, and everyone of them are similar.